This invention relates generally to wireless networks, and more particularly, to a method and system for facilitating mobility of a node within a domain or network.
The rapid growth of wireless networks and services, fueled by industry activity in the area of next generation mobile communication systems, has ushered in the era of ubiquitous computing. Lightweight portable computers, Internet Protocol-based (office and home) appliances, and the popularity of the Internet are providing strong incentives to service providers to support seamless user mobility. Realizing commercially viable Internet Protocol (IP) mobility support over the current cellular infrastructure, however, remains a challenge. In particular, for real-time multimedia (audio, video, and text) communications, user mobility poses several challenges.
Wireless access to telecommunication services has traditionally been provided through wide area cellular systems, which in turn are connected to the public telecommunication network backbones, such as the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network). It is expected that future wireless communications systems will be more heterogeneous and that every mobile user will be able to gain access to the Internet backbone by attaching his or her computer to a wireless access point. A telecommunication architecture that supports IP mobility will enable service providers to offer high-quality broadband multimedia services to mobile users in a cost effective way. Although, neither the Internet nor the telecommunications networks are currently designed to support high bandwidth, real-time multimedia services, a series of new technologies for third generation (3G) wireless systems are being developed to make this a reality. These technologies include IMT-2000 (International Mobile Telecommunications System), UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunication Systems), GPRS (General Packet Radio Service), EDGE (Enhance Data rate for GSM Evolution), CDMA-2000 (Code Division Multiple Access), and WCDMA (Wideband CDMA).
Mobility management in cellular networks is achieved in a different way than in IP-based networks. More precisely, mobility management enables telecommunication networks to locate mobile nodes, such as roaming wireless terminals for call delivery and to maintain connections as the nodes move into new service areas. Mobility management consists of two components, a location management and a handoff management. Location management enables the network to discover the current attachment point of the mobile user for call delivery. Handoff management enables the network to maintain connection to a mobile node as the mobile node continues to move and change its access point to the network.
User mobility in a cellular architecture supporting IP mobility may be broadly classified into three categories: micro-mobility, macro-mobility or intra-domain mobility, and global-mobility or inter-domain mobility. Micro-mobility refers to movement of a mobile node within or across different base stations within a subnet, and occurs very rapidly. Currently, management of micro-mobility is accomplished using link-layer support (layer-2 protocol). Macro-mobility refers to movement of a mobile node across different subnets within a single domain or region, and typically occurs relatively less frequently than micro-mobility but more frequently than global mobility. Macro-mobility is currently handled by Internet mobility protocols (layer-3), such as Mobile IP. Global mobility is the movement of a mobile node among different administrative domains or geographical regions. At present, global mobility is also handled by layer-3 protocols, such as Mobile IP.
In general, the goal of mobility management is to ensure continuous and seamless connectivity during micro-mobility and macro-mobility, which occur over relatively short time-scales. Global-mobility, on the other hand, usually involves longer time-scales—the goal there is often to ensure that mobile nodes can re-establish communication after a move rather than to provide continuous connectivity.
Several frameworks have been recently proposed to support seamless network access to mobile nodes. Among these proposals, Mobile IP and Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) have been currently standardized by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). Mobile IP supports an application-transparent IP mobility, while SIP provides an application layer signaling protocol for creating, modifying and terminating sessions with one or more participants, both in wireline and wireless networks.
As will be discussed in more detail below, the basic Mobile IP protocol was designed to provide a near-term solution for mobile nodes, without requiring protocol upgrades in stationary correspondent nodes (CN) and routers. However, it does not consider the integration of additional functions such as authentication and billing, which are critical for successful adoption in commercial networks.
On the other hand, SIP is an application layer control (signaling) protocol that can establish, modify and terminate multimedia sessions or calls. Recently, an architecture has been proposed for SIP mobility support to avoid certain problems with Mobile IP. However, SIP mobility cannot support TCP connections and is also not suitable for micro- and macro-mobility.
Though the Mobile IP solution meets the goals of operational transparency and handoff support, it is not optimized for managing macro-mobility (or intra-domain mobility) in commercial cellular networks. In particular, a larger number of location update messages and the latency involved in communicating these update messages to remote nodes make Mobile IP unsuitable for supporting real-time applications on the Internet. It has thus become necessary to modify the basic Mobile IP architecture to obtain a more scalable solution that is consistent with the evolving cellular architecture and that also supports uninterrupted operations of real-time applications. This has led to the development of protocols like Hand-off Aware Wireless Access Internet Infrastructure (HAWAII) and Cellular IP. However, all of these solutions have limitations in dealing with intra-domain or macro-mobility in the telecommunications networks, and none is best suited for all services and applications.
Mobile IP provides an IP-based mobility solution allowing mobile nodes to maintain network connectivity while retaining their permanently assigned IP addresses. In particular, it enables the mobility of a node to be transparent to all executing applications. This is essentially achieved by providing the mobile node with an additional address (in addition to its permanent home address) that is topologically consistent with the network. This additional address is also referred to as a “care-of-address” and ensures that packets are forwarded using conventional IP routing to the current location of a mobile node in a foreign network. A foreign network may be a network other than a mobile node's permanent home network.
The basic Mobile IP specification allows for two distinct methods of operation:
1. The first mode of operation uses a foreign agent (FA) while a mobile node visits a foreign network, or a network other than the mobile node's home network. The FA provides the mobile node with a binding IP address that is consistent with the addressing scheme deployed in the foreign network. A mobile node can connect to the foreign network by registering the IP address of the FA with its home agent (HA), a statically assigned agent to the mobile node in its home network.
2. The second mode of operation does not require any agent support in the foreign network, but requires the mobile node to obtain a temporary IP address therein. A mobile node usually obtains this address from a specified pool using protocols, such as DHCP (dynamic host configuration protocol), and then uses its own co-located care-of-address in the foreign network.
The co-located address mechanism allows the mobile to have direct control over the path of its own packets and also does not rely on the existence of additional agents in the foreign network. While this may currently seem to be an advantage, an agent-reliant mobility management scheme may be more advantageous in an integrated commercial telecommunications infrastructure. with the current IPv4 infrastructure. Investigation and improvement of IPv4-based mobility mechanisms thus continues to be an area of practical concern.
In recent years, various solutions have been proposed to handle additional problems related to the Mobile IP-based mobility management, such as firewall traversal, reverse-tunneling or bi-directional tunneling. However, these enhancements are still not particularly suitable for supporting intra-domain mobility in cellular wireless networks. Particularly, the enhancements lack support for fast handoff control, real-time location update, registration and configuration. Moreover, the importance of application-transparent mobility has diminished in present scenarios as many applications (e.g., web browsing) are now able to internally handle network level mobility.
An extension to the Mobile IP has been proposed, which uses hierarchical foreign agents to handle intra-domain or macro-mobility. In this architecture, however, base stations are assumed to be network routers. Hence this is not compatible with the current cellular architectures, in which base stations are simply layer-2 forwarding agents. Moreover, deploying a hierarchy of foreign agents brings with it complex operational and security issues (especially in a commercial multi-provider environment) and requires multiple layers of packet processing on the data transport path. The presence of multiple layers of mobility-supporting agents also significantly increases the possibility of communication failure, as it does not exploit the inherent robustness of the Internet routing protocols.
Several IETF proposals have also explored the possibility of using hierarchical foreign agents for seamless mobility within a domain but have not been actively pursued in the recent past. The need for hierarchical agents in an Internet mobility architecture remains an open issue. While it does not appear to be a critical consideration in the immediate future, it is possible that hierarchical mobility management will become more attractive as the IP security infrastructure matures and a much larger number of mobile multimedia terminals are deployed.
A draft on Mobile IP regional tunnel management has been recently proposed in IETF. The proposal provides a scheme for performing registrations locally in the visited (foreign) domain, thereby reducing the number of signaling messages forwarded to the home network as well as lowering the signaling latency that occurs when a mobile node moves from one foreign agent to another. The draft addresses one of the important drawbacks in conventional Mobile IP. The suggested enhancement to the registration scheme uses a gateway foreign agent, which lies one level higher in the foreign agent hierarchy and provides a more stable global care-of-address to the mobile node.
Given the concerns for enabling IP-based mobility in a commercial environment, a few other protocols have been proposed to extend Mobile IP to better support micro- and macro-mobility in the next generation cellular environments, as discussed below.
The Handoff-Aware Wireless Access Internet Infrastructure (HAWAII) proposes a technique for using a separate binding protocol to handle intra-domain mobility (i.e., micro and macro-mobility) while using Mobile IP for inter-domain mobility. It suggests the use of a two-layer hierarchy for mobility management. When a mobile node moves into a foreign domain, it is assigned a co-located care-of-address from that domain and the mobile node maintains its care-of-address unchanged while moving within the foreign domain. Thus, the movement of the mobile node within a domain is transparent to the home agent. This protocol uses path setup messages to establish and update host-based routing entries for mobile nodes in only specific routers within the domain, while other routers are not updated.
When a correspondent node sends packets to a roaming mobile node, it uses the mobile node's home IP address. The home agent intercepts the packets and sends the encapsulated packet to the mobile node's current border router. The border or root router decapsulates and again encapsulates the packet to forward it either to the intermediate router or to the base station which decapsulates the packet and finally delivers it to the mobile node.
Cellular IP proposes an alternative method to support local mobility (i.e., micro- and macro-mobility) in a cellular network, which consists of interconnected cellular IP nodes. This protocol uses Mobile IP for wide area mobility. It has many similarities with the host-based routing paradigm of HAWAII. In particular, Cellular IP is designed to support local mobility, such as between base stations in a cellular network. As mobile node addresses have no location significance inside a cellular IP network, the architecture uses the home IP address as a unique host identifier. When a mobile node enters a Cellular IP network, it communicates the address of a local gateway to its home agent as the care-of-address.
Nodes outside the Cellular IP network do not need any enhancements to communicate with nodes inside the network. When a correspondent node sends packets to a roaming mobile node, the correspondent node uses the mobile node's home IP address. As in conventional Mobile IP, the home agent intercepts the packets and sends the encapsulated packets to the mobile node's current gateway. The gateway decapsulates the packets and forwards them to the mobile node's home address using a node specific route. Thus, the nodes sending or receiving datagrams to/and from the mobile node remain unaware of the node's location inside the Cellular IP network.
Another framework for IP-based mobility management has been recently developed by the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) Standards Subcommittee TR45.6 to target the third generation cellular wireless systems. The requirements have been set by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) for IMT-2000. The framework uses Mobile IP with foreign agents for inter-domain or global mobility. For intra-domain or macro-mobility, the scheme proposes the use of dynamic home agents (DHA), which reside in a serving network and are dynamically assigned by a visited Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) server. DHA allows a roaming mobile node to gain service with a local access service provider while avoiding unnecessarily long routing. The architecture defines a new node called Packet Data Serving Node (PDSN) (which contains the foreign agent), and uses VLR/HLR (ANSI-41 or GSM-MAP) authentication and authorization information for the access network. The mobile node is identified by an NAI (Network Access Identifier) in the visiting or foreign network. A mobile node sends the registration message to the foreign agent, which in turn interacts with an AAA server residing in that network.
Despite various enhancements, as well as protocols like HAWAII and Cellular IP, for mobility management in telecommunication networks, Mobile IP has several shortcomings. First, basic Mobile IP has a long handoff delay when a mobile node and its home agent or correspondent node are separated by many hops in a wide-area network. Location updates need to travel over the entire path from the mobile node to the home agent or correspondent node before the change in mobile location is effectively communicated and ongoing connections are restored. As a result, data in transit may be lost while the handoff completes and a new route to the mobile node has to be established.
Second, in different versions of Mobile IPv4 (with and without route optimization) and in Mobile IPv6, location updates are always generated whenever a mobile node changes a subnet in a foreign network. Since subnet changes occur fairly rapidly, this approach results in the frequent generation of location update messages. In regions having an extremely large population of mobile nodes, the signaling load can become a significant portion of the traffic.
Third, though the recent proposal on tunnel management discusses regional registration when the distance between the visited and home networks of a mobile node is large, it does not disclose an architecture applicable to telecommunication networks. Moreover, in this scheme, not only is the assignment of a gateway foreign agent (GFA) (a more stable globally valid care-of-address) to a mobile node performed by a foreign agent, the foreign agent transparently appends the GFA IP address information itself as a registration extension to the registration request message if the care-of-address field is set to zero while sending this to the home agent. Practical implementation of such mechanisms would require the maintenance of valid security associations between all foreign agents and the home agent, making the mobility management scheme significantly more complex. Further, the idea of having the home network distribute the registration key associated with an mobile node to the corresponding gateway foreign agent (to enable regional registrations in the visited domain) may weaken the strong security association paradigm between a home agent and a mobile node in the conventional Mobile IP.
Fourth, Mobile IP schemes specifying the use of co-located care-of-address implicitly assume the availability of a pool of public addresses. As mobile nodes become ubiquitous, the availability of such addresses becomes more critical. This is particularly relevant in cellular networks where service providers may be unwilling to spend resources to obtain chunks of the public address space upfront. Furthermore, the use of public addressees by arbitrary mobile nodes within a provider's domain may be restricted or prohibited due to, for example, security concerns and firewall restrictions.
Finally, since the current Mobile IP standard requires the mobile node to change the care-of-address at every subnet transition, it is harder to reserve network resources on an end-to-end path between a correspondent node and a mobile node. For example, if the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) is used to make reservations for Quality of Service (QoS) sensitive traffic, new reservations over the entire data path must be set up whenever the care-of-address changes.
While HAWAII and Cellular IP may largely overcome the preceding limitations by ensuring that a mobile node maintains a single care-of-address while changing subnets or cells within a domain, this is achieved at the expense of requiring the establishment of source-specific routes within an administrative domain. Such a scheme, however, is not scalable, as the state information and route lookup complexity in the routers increases rapidly with an increase in the mobile node population. The propagation of source-specific routes within a single domain may significantly increase the signaling complexity.
The Wireless IP network architecture (TR45.6) design uses existing standard protocols for mobility management and Home Location Register/Visitor Location Register for location update. Though this scheme offers some flexibility in routing by assigning a dynamic home agent in a visitor network, it requires protocol upgrades at all correspondent nodes, thus limiting its market acceptance.